RTFA

You're kidding right? Of course when you were a bit unsure about a term you found on the Internet, you used the Internet to look it up because it only takes seconds, and you're only posting this here to yank our legs right?

"1. being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region "
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal )

"1. Having existed in a region from the beginning: aboriginal forests. See Synonyms at native."
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aboriginal )

If you have the time, why not train him? You say you have enough other customers for now, so you don't have to worry about the short term, and when the economy gets better, you did a good service to a customer and they'll think of you again.

Plus...

You learn training skills, which is quite marketable.

If your replacement is really good, he'll probably be a good addition to your network. He'll remember that you trained him, and he'll move on to other positions where he can recommend you. And when he moves on, the company will need you again as well.

If he's not good, make sure that people can see that you tried. Powerpoints, handouts, recommended books, hours spent pair programming, etc. They'll need you again, make sure they understand that you tried to help them.

Actually, photos do have an effective mass (=relativistic mass). You could say that they have no rest-mass, though.
Photos are affected by gravity - light bends around heavy stars, for example: the gravity lens effect.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I understand why the author got upset, but.. I still think Wikipedia policy is reasonable.
In this case, everyone seems to agree that the author is reasonable, psychologically stable enough to know his inspiration, and not likely to lie for whatever reason. Nobody seems to dispute his statements about the inspiration for his story.

That's not the case for every author. There are plenty authors who would lie to generate publicity, or think it is cool post-modernist or whatever to lie about it, or have such mental issues that discussions about their inspirations are best left to professionals.

It's probably best that they don't get the last say about their Wikipedia pages.

If this results in Internet censorship or another great firewall, that can't be too good for the Indian outsourcing industry.
Would you let a team of outsourced programmers work on your code if they cannot access the websites they need to do their jobs? Or of they can't communicate with your on-site developers using the same sites that everybody else uses?
Or if they can't access the website that you're developing as a company?

Don't think so. They're just shooting themselves in the foot over there.

You don't have to pay for that fun. There's always a chance that you meet some millionaire in a bar and that he or she decides to give you a few million just because they like you.
Or that you find an old painting from a master in some garage sale which makes you a millionaire when you sell it. Or whatever that happens to make you instantly rich.

The chance of these things happening is probably much better than 1 in 176 million for each time period that this lottery runs.

Liberalism and liberterianism are not the same, and liberals in countries with proportional voting systems are definitely not the same as libertarians in the U.S.

Most liberals want to government to give people equal chances in life, while most libertarians want to either abolish government or keep it as small as possible.

Let me Wikipedia that for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Actually liberal parties in Europe have quite a lot in common with the democratic party in the US, in terms of what they want to achieve. Except they're typically considered right of the center in Europe.

You'll have to switch to small pieces of gold for these cases. Maybe some organization will even standardize the size of these pieces of gold and stamp them with its mark. And possibly a number indicating how valuable it is.

Now that will be something completely novel.

It's useful research. If we can get them to booze *before* having sex, we'll have less food spoilage due to fruit fly maggots...

One of the really interesting things in this verdict is that the judge explicitly said that forcing something to give you "software, computer data or a PIN code" cannot be seen as theft, because it doesn't leave the 'power of disposal' of the original owner, but instead also becomes at the disposal of somebody else in an unwanted manner. There are other laws that deal with that though.

So in in this verdict the judge explicitly said that illegal copying is *not* theft, because for theft something needs to be taken away from somebody, and that doesn't happen when something is copied.

In interesting argument that organizations like RIAA and MPAA that throw around extremely harsh words such as 'piracy' and 'theft' as if it was candy, probably do not want to hear.

The question that the judges answered in the ruling was, whether the crime of "theft" was committed by defendant.
That's article 310 of the Dutch penal code, translated (IANAL) as "He who takes a good that belongs wholly of partly to another person, with the intent to appropriate it in an illegal manner, will be, as being guilty of "theft", punished with a prison term of at most 4 years or a monetary fine of the fourth category"

His defense argued that what was 'stolen' could not be seen as 'goods' as defined by article 310. Also important to note is that if something is a 'good' under that article does not necessarily mean that it is also a 'good' for any other law or purpose.

The Dutch highest court does not look at the entire case again, it will only look at certain aspects of it (questions of law) and not of fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_Netherlands

A lower court already concluded that the defendant was guilty of articles 310 and 312 (theft accompanied by violence --> robbery).

So since the high court concluded that the in-game possessions were goods according to the law, it automatically had to conclude that theft and theft accompanied with violence were committed. And I personally don't see why not, as this is clearly a robbery.

Luckily we don't have mandatory minimum sentences in Holland so judges have a lot of freedom to look at the circumstances when considering the punishments.
Things like how much or what kind of violence was used, how old the defendant was, whether he is a repeat offender, etc.

We don't actually have to twist to meaning of the word "robbery" and call it something else when the minimum punishment seems too high, because some politician who can't stick to his own business forced judges to ignore the circumstances.

The definition of success-rate is not user-centric.
'The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.'

How do we know this matches what a user finds interesting? As someone mentioned, typically with Google you don't even need to go to a website, the answer you're looking for is already shown in the search results. That may not sit well with the website owner, and this study is clearly measuring success from the perspective from the website owner.

But who cares about that when you want to find something? Clearly the users are voting with their feet.

Another interesting thing: what if, after a Google search, you're happy with the first search result. That's one hit. But if you go to Bing, say the first result is not relevant and you need to visit the first 5 links. Will that make Bing 5 times as "successful"?
Certainly from the perspective of the website owner or advertiser, but surely not from the user.

So I don't think the way Experian Hitwise measures has a lot of bearing on "success" from the perspective of a user. And that is what makes things popular, not whether it satisfies the advertiser.

I'm sorry to say, but this comparison is nonsense.

A stock trader is a free actor. It has choices that it can make. For one, the choice to employ an automated system without human supervision, And even the automated system could respond in any way it liked, and was not obliged to respond in the way that these two stock traders envisioned.

A head being subjected to an entering bullet has no choice. It can only follow the laws of physics.
In that case, it is not the head that is responsible for what happens to it, but the last person or entity who had a choice in which action to take.

I think you're much too kind here to your average apple fanboy, or you are not reading sites like MacRumors. Here's an example that is coherently written (a big plus among posts from people who would like to see Apple buy ARM)